Month: September 2009

If you’re as rich as Bill Gates, can you make 1000 kids legally?
If you don’t hurt others, why shouldn’t others hurt you?
If you never hurt your enemies, why should anyone believe you may?
Treat thieves like vermin and they’ll treat us like God, the way we deserve from them!

Yet information promoting marriage like romance were legal and information promoting free sex like porn is illegal for minor. Also many alternatives to lifelong monogamous marriage is illegal, like prostitution, contract marriage, concubinage and so on.

I know a beautiful female friend that wants a divorce. She can’t unless her husband has a mistake first. Not being rich enough to the next best competitor is not a mistake. Being able to attract other mates however are. Of course this rules favor the less competitive partner of the marriage. This is the most stupid non meritocratic rules I’ve ever seen in any contract.

We are told that when we get married we agreed to be loyal till death due us part. How do they know? Were they there when we write the contract? No. They know because that’s the only kind of contract people can make when get married.

I can spam thousands of forums. I can promote any petition. I can do anything I can help to end or at least discourage marriage ALL over the world.

Of course I know the real reason why religious bigots demand marriage institution is because they cannot get any mate if humans are free to choose their mates AND the terms of their mating.
I bet all those feminists that demand that women should fight as soldiers in front lines are ugly. I partially agree with them. If they’re ugly why not? But why prevent the pretty from being porn star?
Who’s with me?

Anything endorsed by government outside prohibition of fraud and force is most likely obsolete, from traditional market to public education and to marriage. If it’s not obsolete, government does not need to endorse it. The market would promote whatever system that would provide the best option for the market player.

In detail:

In ancient time marriage serves some legitimate market purpose. Rich males want to inherit their wealth. They need to know which kid is his biological child. Of course. I wouldn’t want to work hard all my life if I ended up giving money to someone else’ kids.

In ancient time, there is only one way for a male to know for sure whether the kid is his. He can only knows that by ensuring that the kids’ mother mate only with him. That then becomes marriage.

Society also has legitimate interests. Imagine if we have a child with no known father. Are we going to let the kid starve to death? I wouldn’t do it to a kitten. But if we help the kid that’s not victimless. Tax payer ended up paying. Also it encourages some males (if not eventually most) to just make kids and don’t bother supporting it. So in ancient time, requiring marriage does have a reasonable cause.

Now, those purposes mean less.

1. We can always know who the kid is by blood or DNA testing. Far more practical than say stoning wifes that mate with other man.
2. Marriage increase, rather than decrease, a male chance from having his wealth ended up supporting others’ kid. If you are not married and your mate produce a kid, you are not responsible for the child support. However, if you are married and your wife commits adultery, you are still responsible for child support. Also huge amount of socialism in all countries means that most of your earning will end up supporting those who make many kids anyway in the form of free education, free healthcare, free whatever.

Marriage also has one important aspect. This aspect will never get obsoletes. Life long monogamous marriage pretty much ration females (or males) in equal share for everyone. Hence we would expect many people that can’t get a high quality mate, will do their best to ensure that marriage is the norm.

As countries get richer, the males in those countries will have easier time to attract a mate. Those males tend to be more liberal and let the women choose, like in French or Japan, where women can walk naked on the street. The more a country is poor, the more restriction that their government will need to keep the peace. In Afgan, women can’t even work. In many poor countries women clits are cut of.

Imagine if women are as free in Afgan as they are in Japan, for example. All those women would have flaunted their naked tits openly and ended up marrying American tourists rather than local males. Quite predictably, most Afganistan males would condemn that.

If any of you want to help eliminating all governments endorsement for marriage institution (and hence making marriage truly obsolete), let me know how. I am all for it. Or please point me to a right forum. Let’s not bitch about the world. Either change our self to match the world or change the world to be a better place for us. Whichever is easier.

When I was young I was forced to take so many classes that I do not think are useful. In one point of view, the classes are useless. Students, however, took those classes anyway because they are forced to take those classes where they memorize dates and names of irrelevant events.

That’s one point of view. Another way to easily see that is to see courses taught by private sectors in private tutoring industry. While many parents send their kids to learn more Math and English, no body send their kids to learn national ideology or history. In no private tutoring courses students have to memorize dates and names. That shows that most parents, as informed consumers, do not think those mandatory classes are useful. Case close.

Here is another point of view by the way. The classes are useful. If it weren’t useful, it wouldn’t have been taught. Think it this way. It took enough political will to force millions of people to do something. It must be useful…. To somebody… with enough political cloud to make it happen.

All classes that are taught in school, public and private, are useful for the curriculum makers.

Will those that are useful for the curriculum makers useful for students? It depends. Under free market, students’, which are consumers’, best interests are properly aligned to the interest of the producers, including the curriculum makers. When governments can “regulate” curriculum, all bets are off.

The same way, who are the victim of victimless crime?

In one point of view, none.

But wait. If there is really no victim, it wouldn’t have been a crime. Think about it. It takes enough political will and power to prohibits many from doing a certain thing. Somebody must have had their interests, not right, hurt by those criminalized acts.

Who?

Simple. Competitors.

If porn are legal, many males would rather watch porn, rather than mate with ugly women. That means extinction for ugly women. It’s no wonder that many feminists insist that all women should become soldiers, astronauts, or anything where beauty matters little. Those are ugly feminists. They complaint that women shouldn’t be a sex object. Why? Because they aren’t.

Who are the victim of women trafficking? The women being trafficked? Think again. Many of those trafficking are consensual. If you live in a country where males want to cut your clits, wouldn’t you rather be a prostitute or porn star in richer countries? Women prefer the rich. It’s natural that women from poor countries want to move to richer countries so they can mate with richer males. I am not arguing that all women prefer the rich. I am arguing that it is very reasonable that such movement CAN be VERY consensual.

But when feminists argue that women trafficking hurt women, they are correct too. Not the women being trafficked mainly, especially if the act is fully consensual. Women trafficking from poor countries to rich countries hurts two kind of people. It hurts ugly women in rich countries that do not want to compete with women from poorer countries that ask for less and are often prettier. Women trafficking also hurt the poor males in poor countries, that see now that their prettiest girls move to richer countries instead.

Hei. I am from a poor countries and I too was sad that the prettiest girls from my high school are all in US and Europe. However, it just motivates me to make more money so I can import their replacement from China. Most males would simply choose to prohibits such trafficking.

What else?

Free sex. Does it hurt somebody? Of course. Free sex, like free trade means free competition. It of course hurts those who are not competitive.

What else? Protection of minor? From porn? I remember a story about kids that are grown inside a vase so that their body ended up like the vases. It’s not good for the kids, but good for the kids’ raiser that want to sell the kids to circus. That’s what public education and anti porn regulation really is all about. They want to grow kids in their vases, till it’s too late to reverse the damage.

Years we learn biology in school, not once we are told that women prefer the rich and males prefer the pretty. Yet we have to memorize so many other facts that are irrelevant to our lives. Why? So we grow exactly the way the vase makers do.

Rather than thinking that porn is dangerous from minor, wouldn’t it make sense to think that censorship is the one that we should protect our children from? Imagine if you’re aware that somebody kidnapped your child and grow her in a vase. Wouldn’t you want to break the vase (and kill the kidnappers) rather than agreeing that your kids should be protected from non vase influences?

What’s interesting with all these criminalization is that for some reason, most of us, quite reasonably, do not believe that competition has victim. Most of us believe that it’s part of the game and that’s the way it should be. Competition is the main, if not sole, reason why humans want to do better than others for others. Hence, people that want to promote criminalization of victimless acts need to LIE.

There goes all form of nonsense arguments. Sometimes what they said is simply vague. Some feminists may argue that porn “demean” women. It’s vague accusation. What does demean mean? Which women? Is having more freedom demeaning? Is having more power to decide what to do with your life when you all consensual acts are legal demeaning? Is not having to agree with bigots and slave owners but free to choose demeaning? Arguable. Hard to say. It’s vague.

Other bigots will resort to religions based on faith. It’s hard to argue against fairy tales as we all agree.

Most people will not get married if all alternatives are legal. What kind of stores would demand that you can only buy from that store only if you agree to some form of exclusivity agreement and be loyal customer till death do you part? Some stores might do that but most simply don’t.

Perhaps promoting science and evolution theory will help shed light to what’s the real issue is. Books like “Selfish Gene” or “The Red Queen” have pretty much becoming mainstream and help cornering religious bigotry.